ArticleTurkish archives of pediatrics2023
Venovenous Versus Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.
Article in Turkish archives of pediatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the efficacy, complication, and mortality of patients who were supported by venovenous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and venoarterial (VA) ECMO for pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (PARDS). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study is a single-center, retrospective cohort study between 2014 and 2022. We evaluated to indication of ECMO support, ECMO type, patients' demographic features, complications, and children's outcomes supported by ECMO for PARDS.
resultsTwenty-two patients with PARDS, 12 (54%) with VV, and 10 (46%) with VA ECMO were selected. The median number of days to be intubated before ECMO cannulation was 5 (0-16) days. The distribution of intubated days before the patients underwent ECMO was as follows: 0-1 days, 7 (31.8%) patients; 2-3 days, 2 (9.1%) patients; 4-7 days, 7 (31.8%) patients; 8-14 days, 5 (22.8%) patients; >14 days, 1 (4.5%) patient. The median ECMO cannulation day after admission to the pediatric intensive care unit was 3 (range, 1-9) days in the VV ECMO patient group, whereas it was 8 (range, 0-19) days in the VA ECMO group (P = .02). Considering hospital survival, 4 (45%) patients who underwent double-lumen VV ECMO, 1 (33%) patient who underwent VV ECMO, and 3 (30%) patients who supported by VAECMO survived. There was no difference between the groups in terms of hospital discharge rates.
conclusionThe highest survival rate was found in the VV ECMO patient group established with double-lumen cannulas, similar to the literature. There was no difference in mortality between the groups whose intubation time before ECMO was 14 days or less.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.